Slashdot Mirror


Legendary 747 Designer Joe Sutter Dies Age 95 (stuff.co.nz)

Slashdot reader schwit1 writes: Joe Sutter, Boeing's lead designer for the design and construction of the 747, has passed away at 95. This documentary of the 747 and Joe Sutter is excellent: Jumbo Revolution.
Sutter and his engineers "initially played second fiddle to the more glamorous Boeing development project at the time, the Supersonic Transport (SST)," according to Stuff.co.nz. "But the US government ultimately killed funding for the SST, and the 747 turned into the icon of international long-haul flying that established Boeing's supremacy in commercial aviation for more than two decades after it entered service in January 1970."

Sutter's team completed the roll-out of the 747 in just 29 months -- a record -- and in 1986 Sutter also served on the team investigating the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger. "Appalled that NASA's safety standards were lower than those in his commercial airplane world, Sutter was typically vocal in his criticism and pushed a key recommendation of the committee to implement a new safety management system."

59 comments

  1. just a little short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sutter's team completed the roll-out of the 747 in just 29 months -- a record

    They barely missed it. Actually 33 1/3 months would have been a record.

    1. Re:just a little short by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Millions of millennials don't understand your joke.

    2. Re:just a little short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck the millenials.

    3. Re:just a little short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won't let me.

    4. Re:just a little short by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Uh...

      This might come as a shock to you, but millineals seem to like scratchy, degrading sound. My local large Sainsbury's (big supermarket chain in the UK, not far off equivalent to Kroger) now has a stand selling USB record players and a bunch of LPs. This is recent and they ain't targeting the old fogies.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:just a little short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or wear one of these:

      https://www.amazon.com/Sterling-Jewelry-Adapter-Pendant-Diameter/dp/B004IZON3I

  2. Does Jesus still have talking snakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like, you know, the same Bible mentions.

    Compeltely plausibele.

  3. The documentary by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Can we see more than a "sneak peek"? Why the tease?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  4. anyone on fly the 747? by bkmoore · · Score: 1
    Just curious, did anyone here fly the 747 and could share some stories?

    One of my first childhood memories was seeing the cockpit on a 747 in the mid 70's. I was too young to know it was a 747, but I remember going up a spiral staircase, and only the 747 had one. Seeing the cockpit at that early age motivated me to pursue a career in engineering and aviation. Too bad cockpit tours are mostly banned nowadays.

    1. Re:anyone on fly the 747? by JamesTRexx · · Score: 1

      I was on one back to Amsterdam from South Africa, unfortunately economy class. My knees hurt like hell after the cramped overnight flight. No more KLM economy flights for me.

      --
      home
    2. Re:anyone on fly the 747? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. But I flew a 767 in a tower, and it wasn't very hard.

    3. Re:anyone on fly the 747? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad cockpit tours are mostly banned nowadays.

      For my entire childhood it was common for the cabin crew to invite interested kids up during the cruise phase of the flight to check out the cockpit, ask questions, and talk to the pilots for a few minutes. Cockpit doors wide open, and of course there was no airport security at all. By none at all, I mean no metal detectors, no checkpoints, no carry-on baggage scanning, no body scanners, no pat-downs, nothing. People could and did often walk onto aircraft with their personal firearms.

      Then came the 1970's and a wave of aircraft hijackings, and then 9/11, and now we can no longer have nice things.

    4. Re: anyone on fly the 747? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.. I've been captain on most all variants for 20 years, it's a fantastic Airplane.

    5. Re:anyone on fly the 747? by Jack+Malmostoso · · Score: 1

      Well it's not like 747s have disappeared from commercial aviation. A number of airlines use the newest 747-8i (such as Lufthansa) and they will use them for years.

      I had the luck of flying on a KLM 747 ICN-AMS; and a 747-400 (FRA-YVR) and 747-8i (JNB-FRA) of Lufthansa.

      The KLM flight was in business on the upper deck, and it was a fluke because at the time only economy travel was company policy. However my VP took his sweet time to approve my travel, and by the time he did it only business was available. Somehow slipped through the cracks, and I got to fly in business. Poor experience all in all, with slanted seats, mediocre food, and a snoring neighbour. But the first time on the upper deck you can't forget!

      Second time was on a 744, and I was booked in business. At the time Lufthansa was flying their 744s with an amazing upper deck configuration with 8 first class seats which also had a bed:

      http://onemileatatime.img.boar...

      I went to the gate before my flight to get my passport sorted, and the friendly gate agent gave me a shiny first class boarding pass. I could not believe my luck, never got an upgrade before, and now this! Made my way to the first class lounge in Frankfurt, ordered eggs benedict and a glass of champagne, and waited to board. I slept about 8 hours straight on my own flying bed!

      Finally I flew the 748 recently on the upper deck in business class, and it was a mostly uneventful flight, but the experience of going up the stairs is always amazing.

      Fun fact, if you get to fly first class on the 748 of lufthansa, you actually sit more in front of the pilots, since the nose of the plane is way ahead of the upper deck!

    6. Re:anyone on fly the 747? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Some airlines still fly them as they last 20-30 years. The newer ones have replaced the upstairs lounge with seats.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re:anyone on fly the 747? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cockpit tours aren't banned on the ground, we just can't let you up there when we're off the gate. Stop by during boarding, most crews (if they're not under any time pressure) are happy to give you a sit in the seat and take your picture.

      I did fly the whale (as we called it) but don't really have any great stories to tell, other than it was a great bird. There are two times the bird will impress you with it's size - the first time you sit in the cockpit (I was looking down on the roof of the terminal we were at) and during a walk around (preflight inspection) when you get to the tail. The horizontal stabilizer is huuuge and is waaay up there.

      If you get to the Air and Space on the mall they have the front section of our first whale, 601, on display. You can enter the upper deck and view the cockpit through a plexiglass wall. I warmed it's right seat a long, long time ago.

    8. Re:anyone on fly the 747? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Interesting that you call it the 'whale.' To me, that term is exclusively reserved for that ugly beast more commonly known as the A380.

      To me the 747 was always "The Big Bird" or "The Jumbo."

    9. Re:anyone on fly the 747? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that you call it the 'whale.' To me, that term is exclusively reserved for that ugly beast more commonly known as the A380.
      To me the 747 was always "The Big Bird" or "The Jumbo."

      'The Whale' was the nickname at our airline.

      I'm told (secondhand) that the Aussies have a colorful name for the 380. Has something to do with it being ugly on the outside, but warm and comfortable on the inside.

      I'm so old I can't figure out what that might be.

    10. Re:anyone on fly the 747? by jbwolfe · · Score: 1
      747 is "The Whale"

      787 is "Sparky"

      737 is "The Guppy"

      757 and 767 never got a name

      777 is "Bigfoot"

      A320/319 is "Fifi"

      727-200s were called "stretch" for the lengthened hull

      --
      Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
    11. Re:anyone on fly the 747? by plover · · Score: 1

      My mom worked for Northwest Orient back when the 747 was launched, and I remember her taking me to see one at MSP. To a kid, every passenger jet was huge, but this one was clearly a completely different beast.

      She also showed me the maintenance hangar. Minneapolis in the winter is no place to work on an aircraft (it was the shooting location for the old original Airport movie if you want to see what winter looked like back in that era.) Since no existing hangar on the property was large enough for the new bird, they went to the largest hangar they had and built new doors with a semi-circular cut-out on each side. When one was in for maintenance in the winter, they parked it so that when they closed the doors, the tail feathers stuck out the hole.

      --
      John
    12. Re:anyone on fly the 747? by jbwolfe · · Score: 2
      Never flew "rope starts" (747-100/200's, so named because they had an engineer), but I have flown the -400 model. It's just like any other Boeing, just bigger. I've no stories to share but the following are some notable events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811/ Lost engines 3 and 4, 8 deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006 High aerodynamic loads resulted from the unusual attitude and transonic airspeed and caused major structural damage, but it held together and landed in SFO.

      Korean Airlines has 3 unfortunate events involving the 747 KAL 007, KAL 801, and KAL 902. Two of those were shootdowns by the Soviet Union!

      --
      Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
    13. Re:anyone on fly the 747? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the 757 was commonly known as the 'Flying pencil' because of its long fuselage.

    14. Re:anyone on fly the 747? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having worked in some way on every single one of these airplane programs over the last 25 years, I've never heard anyone call any of them by these idiotic names.

    15. Re:anyone on fly the 747? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here and seconded. But the 777 is commonly referred to as triple 7.

    16. Re:anyone on fly the 747? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      For my entire childhood it was common for the cabin crew to invite interested kids up during the cruise phase of the flight to check out the cockpit, ask questions, and talk to the pilots for a few minutes.

      Do you like films about gladiators?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    17. Re:anyone on fly the 747? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      For my entire childhood it was common for the cabin crew to invite interested kids up during the cruise phase of the flight to check out the cockpit, ask questions

      "Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?"

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  5. Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that now Yellon Mask is going the reverse, doing "space travel" without the safety.

    1. Re:Ironic by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      that now Yellon Mask is going the reverse, doing "space travel" without the safety.

      Space travel with current technology is inherently unsafe. If you try to do it with the same safety standards as commercial aviation, then you will never launch.

  6. Is the design that "original"? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1
    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Is the design that "original"? by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They didn't set out to make a partial upper deck. The original plan was to make it a full double-decker like Airbus eventually did with the A380. But given their deadline, they didn't think they could solve the problem of adding (safe) evacuation slides for passengers on the upper deck in time, so they settled for a traditional single-decker (which they already had experience designing, just needed to scale everything up to make it wider). The short blister on top for the cockpit was added to allow the cargo variant to have a swing nose so you could load cargo through the front, instead of through the side. So it's not really "copying" someone else's design when there's only one practical solution (the impractical one being putting the cockpit in the swing-away nose and designing all sorts of latches for the mechanical linkages between the cockpit controls to the plane's control surfaces).

      This is why the upper deck on the early 747-100 is a lot shorter than in later variants like the 747-400. The few upper-deck seats on the 747-100 were an afterthought, added more for novelty than for increased passenger capacity. The lower deck on the 747 already carried nearly 3x as many passengers as any other plane operating at the time. Boeing tried for decades to sell the idea of a full double-deck 747 to the airlines, but not enough of them would commit to them. So Boeing never bothered making it. When Airbus announced their plans for the A380, Boeing tried again to pitch a full double-deck 747, and again not enough airlines said they wanted it. That's why they didn't try to compete with Airbus on the A380.

      Production of the A380 will probably soon cease, and its sales have just barely recouped its design costs. The 4-engine airliners like the 747, A340, and A380 are being eaten alive in the market by twin-engine airliners like the 777, 787, and A350 (2 engines are more efficient than 4). The disparity between A380 orders and deliveries is mostly due to airlines which placed orders but have asked to delay delivery or have refused receipt as they consider cancelling. Airbus needs to produce about 20-25 a year for the production facilities alone (i.e. excluding design costs) to operate without losing money. And right now they're scheduled to drop to 12 deliveries/year in 2018, so they'll probably wind up losing money on the A380 overall (the remaining 100 or so orders will probably be delivered at a loss, if they're not canceled outright). So it would appear Boeing's market analysis was correct that there wasn't enough market demand for a full double-deck airliner. It's a good thing the EU government guaranteed the loans Airbus took out to design the plane or this might've bankrupted the company. Competition between Airbus and Boeing is what keeps technology progressing and prices low.

    2. Re: Is the design that "original"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL I can hardly tell the two apart.

    3. Re:Is the design that "original"? by jbwolfe · · Score: 2

      the upper deck on the early 747-100 is a lot shorter than in later variants like the 747-400

      There's an even shorter version that was made for long range flights:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747SP

      --
      Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
    4. Re:Is the design that "original"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but ours isn't ugly.

  7. No one designed the 747 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    First off 747s are still flying.

    Second, my dad was a lead engineer at boeing, and for the 747 he designed the fuel system. It takes a huge team just to design the fuel system. No one person understand the entire plane. No one person could even keep track of all the bolts holes. Building something at that scale is simply a staggering undertaking. Especially when you consider my dad didn't even know how to use a computer. But he had the whole fuel system figured out in his head. And that's probably as much as any one human can bite off on something like this.

    Because of that I've always been in awe of professional engineers and boeing in particular. While I might acheieve really cool basic science discoveries as a PI and even lead modest teams of scientists, Nothing I do really works as well as a boeing plane and is not even close to the complexity.

    These folks have figured out rules of interaction that let you manage complexity and make sure it all works as a system. Boeing in particular also figured out how to learn from mistakes. It's easy to learn from mistakes if you are one person. But a corprorate culture has to almost grow a new organ to institutionalize a way of not repeating mistakes. In the organizations I'm used to working it this slowly becomes a hell of regulations imposed on individuals that basically prevent work. But at boeing they figured this out somehow so that they still can produce airplanes.

    It's really a remarkable social entitity.

    So as software engineers you have a lot you owe to the engineers that went before you and invented all the things you take as endemic to software engineering (e.g. requirements documents, unit tests, etc...). Those were all invented long before computers. There's a reason why the masons who build cathedrals where organized into hierachical guilds. It's because you had to create an entitiy to manage the complexity of building lofty arches back then.

      it's not all just the skill of one man. The amazing part is it's a skill of teams so large most people don't know each other.

    1. Re:No one designed the 747 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really a remarkable social entitity.

      Yes. I was at BA as a systems engineer for half of my working career. Long hours often and high stress but challenging and fun. I was lucky to be a part of it. I was there as some of the things you talk about were being invented and too young to be of much contribution, but attended many a sepg meeting. In the physical space, I was able to help develop many common place technologies and often got to hold some first up instances of such.

    2. Re:No one designed the 747 by chispito · · Score: 1

      Because of that I've always been in awe of professional engineers and boeing in particular. While I might acheieve really cool basic science discoveries as a PI and even lead modest teams of scientists, Nothing I do really works as well as a boeing plane and is not even close to the complexity.

      I've known a handful of Boeing engineers and I don't think any of them had nice things to say about the workplace and management in particular. Don't get me wrong, I agree that there probably is no way to manage massive engineering projects and make everyone happy. But I think the happiest engineers I've known have always worked for smaller companies or at least smaller shops. This is down in Socal, so maybe culture is different in Seattle or elsewhere.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    3. Re:No one designed the 747 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've known a handful of Boeing engineers and I don't think any of them had nice things to say about the workplace and management in particular. Don't get me wrong, I agree that there probably is no way to manage massive engineering projects and make everyone happy. But I think the happiest engineers I've known have always worked for smaller companies or at least smaller shops. This is down in Socal, so maybe culture is different in Seattle or elsewhere.

      I'm curious - how old are those Boeing engineers? Were they Seattle Boeing, or SoCal McDonnell Douglas/Boeing (which was truly Douglas/McDonnell Douglas/Boeing). And regardless, were their opinions shaped prior to the move of corporate to Chicago, or after?

      I ask, because I honestly think that those who worked in Aerospace up to the late '60s (Joe Sutter's bunch) had a MUCH different experience than those like myself who started after the transformation due to the Wall Street era.

    4. Re:No one designed the 747 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The B747 is a Puget Sound Engineered airframe. My Sutter threatened to quit if Boeing moved the development to CA based engineers, he expected to be fired but the VP's blinked and he got his way. Douglas Aircraft merged with McDonnell Aircraft in 1967, Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas in 1997. The B747 was first flown commercially in 1970, long before MD engineers had a say in anything. MD's answer to the B747 was the DC-10 entered service in 1971 later known as the MD11 entered service in 1986.

  8. I Think they are Here: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.airportspotting.com/marana-pinal-airpark-opens-visitors/

  9. Re:Yup, he's dead alright. Don't be like him. by slashrio · · Score: 0

    I've got news for you:
    There's no 'state of sin',
    there's no hell,
    and there ain't no jesus.

    There are however idiots who think they are the only flukes in evolution that have 'a purpose'.
    And there are priests, pastors, elites that profit off them...

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  10. Re:Yup, he's dead alright. Don't be like him. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    "There's no 'state of sin',"

    I don't believe in Nevada either.

  11. Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sutter was typically vocal in his criticism and pushed a key recommendation of the committee to implement a new safety management system.

    So he's the guy who made manned space exploration so expensive that the US doesn't do it anymore. Being a great engineer does not make a person a great leader. Arguably something that carries millions of people every year should be designed to a different safety standard than something that is basically a one-off carrying people who accept lots of unforeseeable risks to do what others only dream of doing.

    1. Re:Safety by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Going into space is not safe, yet you will have people lining up at your door to do it.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    2. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting hypothesis.

      Sad to say, I think it was more the shuttle that helped make it too expensive, also. As with anything complex, there can be complex reasons why something is or isn't happening.

    3. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to clarify, I meant "one-of". No offing intended.

  12. He gave a simple solution to a showstopper by TigerPlish · · Score: 4, Interesting

    During the 747 development, it was found that the wings would oscillate up and down and with a twisting motion, a condition which if allowed to continue and amplify would destroy the airplane.

    Some engineers wanted to redo the whole wing.

    Sutter's solution was to permanently twist the wing from root to wingtip. It worked, and took much less cash and time than a redesign. Google for "Sutter Twist"

    When the 747-8 was designed with the 787-inspired wing, the same problem showed up again. This time, it was cured in the software.

    Funny, I saw a documentary on the building of the original 747 just a few days before he died. I knew he was the project manager but didn't know he cured the wing issue with such a simple fix.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    1. Re:He gave a simple solution to a showstopper by bkmoore · · Score: 1

      ...Sutter's solution was to permanently twist the wing from root to wingtip....

      That's called a geometric twist and is used in swept-wing aircraft to prevent stalling at the wing tip before the root. The other solution is called aerodynamic twist; using different airfoils between the root and tip, where the tip airfoil has a higher stalling AOA. But to use it to counteract flutter is probably new and Sutter deserves credit for his insight.

    2. Re:He gave a simple solution to a showstopper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another solution is dynamic dampening through computer controlled feedback augmentation to the control surfaces

  13. Liability by SeaFox · · Score: 2

    in 1986 Sutter also served on the team investigating the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger. "Appalled that NASA's safety standards were lower than those in his commercial airplane world...

    Not to be a pessimist here, but I imagine NASA astronauts sign onto the program with a possibility of death being part of contract. They are dealing with some of the outer limits of our current science and technology in the name of exploration. It's a slightly different thing than a family climbing onto a jumbo jet for a cross-country trip to visit grandma. There a lot more angry surviving family with lawyers in the latter.

    1. Re:Liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 insightful..."There a lot more angry surviving family with lawyers in the latter."

    2. Re:Liability by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Low temperature failure of the o rings was a known problem that they could have avoided by delaying for a warmer day.

      Yeah, man space flight is dangerous. For that reason, NASA should give astronauts some help. If your engineers are concerned that a problem could destroy the craft, and that waiting until Florida, for God's sake, warms up a bit, alleviates the problem, then do it.

    3. Re:Liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, on the operational safety..

      But the space shuttle was 87 percent fuel and a 747 is only 50 percent fuel. You can fit a lot more structural safety factor in the remaining 50% and still have useful payload than you can in 13%, so it's not surpriseing that there need to be some compromises on safety that you wouldn't need to make in an airliner.

    4. Re:Liability by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Astronauts are not suicidal. If you really want to know about this, read Feynman's appendix to the Roger's Commission report. Management was lying and they had a whole process built so that they did not even know they were lying.

    5. Re:Liability by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Astronauts are not suicidal.

      Neither are people who join the army -- but they understands the chances of getting maimed or killed in action are there. People taking commercial air travel are sold the trip on the idea they definitely will come back in one piece and the airline is a lot more invested to make sure they do.

    6. Re:Liability by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Low temperature failure of the o rings was a known problem that they could have avoided by delaying for a warmer day.

      Only to have the o-rings fail anyhow... Seriously, the myth that the cold caused the accident needs to die in a fire. The o-rings were a ticking time bomb at any temperature - the worst failures pre-51L occurring with launch temps in the 70's and 80's. (Which is why NASA already had a fix in the pipeline when they launched 51L.) The cold contributed to the accident, but it did not in and of itself cause the accident.

    7. Re:Liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should actually be able to achieve higher safety factors with rockets. The shapes are simpler (no wings and stuff), the tanks are pressurized and carry substantial portions of the load, etc.

  14. He didn't wait too long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't want to fly with an airplane that got designed by a 100 year old.

  15. The Age of Aerospace - Must watch! by approachingZero+ · · Score: 1
    This is a really good documentary, and includes some great insight into the building of the Boeing 747 and Joe Sutter.

    http://theageofaerospace.com/d...

    --
    'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback